First off we are having a legit discussion which I think is healthy and have no problem with your position and points as they legit and have a lot strength in them.
In relation to SU basketball our brand is one of the best in NYC because we have won a lot in the Big East and NYC is a college basketball market. NYC cares about college basketball unlike college football IMO as the Giants, Jets dominate the football market, but in college basketball Syracuse, Duke, North Carolina, St. John's, UConn all play in the city. St. John's used to own the city, but their decline while SU has stayed consistently a national player has allowed SU basketball to command attention in NYC. I don't think a lot of non-SU alums are a SU fans per se, but they like our program because of the winning we have done in the Big East. Also, NYC is a hotbed for college basketball players. Most of the country recruits NYC HS talent for their programs unlike in college football where there may be 1 or 2 4/5 star football recruits their are lots more basketball recruits coming out of NYC each year.
Moving the BC, NC State, Wake Forest, Pitt, Louisville games to NYC on a rotating basis allows SU to fulfill their contract they have with Metlife Stadium, and not give up premiere non-conference games. If we are going to continue the NY's College team brand then we will continue playing in Metlife Stadium. However, those ACC opponents should be good enough teams to attract mid 30k crowd and give the AD the ability to court down state fans, and not sellout the best non-conference games. That is what I am saying with my statement. I prefer we play ZERO home games at Metlife Stadium, but understand fulfilling the agreement we have signed.
I don't believe anyone thinks the MetLife contract was signed with the intent of bringing lower level opponents to an 80K plus stadium. So I would rather we keep our commitment in spirit as well as whatever is in writing, but understand if both parties agree the experiment should not proceed and mutually agree to end the contract before it's actual expiration date that is fine.
As for continuing to brand ourselves by playing the MetLife games with lesser opponents from the ACC, I don't see the logic in suggesting that at all. I understand your saying well, if we have to play there because we are legally bound to, then just put some of the lesser ACC match ups there.
Continuing to brand ourselves as New York's College Team but then turning around and doing what you suggest would only hurt the branding, not help it, imho. It would be like agreeing to play an average basketball program at MSG every other year that has no connection to the city or not likely to generate much interest in the city in terms of the sport.
As for your point about St. John's once owning the city (was that ever true?) then SU's and UConn's rise can be correlated to these programs beating St. John's consistently enough while also getting national attention for their overall seasons. It basically mimics what happened in college football in the city when Army was clearly the favorite team and Notre Dame came in and consistently beat them while gaining national stature. Seems to me that NYC loves winners, they especially love winners they can claim as their own.
On the recruiting end, keep in mind that MetLife is physically located in northern New Jersey so add those recruits into an increasing NYC pool of recruits, but agree that no one is signing on to the MetLife games on either side mainly because of recruiting. Both sides (SU and whoever signs to play us there) are doing so for TV exposure in the northeast and fundraising. Can SU get Michigan to come to the Dome. Sure. Can SU get USC to come to the Dome. Again, sure. That's where they were going to play us. We moved that game, not them, unless they were going to exercise a buyout clause that I am unaware of.
The question remains, how often can we get a major OOC college football power to the Dome?
In the Old Big East we seemed to get one every other year, but once Miami and VT left, it's basically been one every 4 years in the Dome. FSU in 2004 (a consolation gift for not making it into the ACC and the fact we were in desperate need of a game), PSU in 2008, and then what was going to have been USC in 2012.
Maybe now that we are in a solid conference again we might go back to one every other year, but with three of the four other power conferences going to 9 game conference schedules we're competing with a lot of others for a limited number of possibilities. The MetLife solution might be the deciding factor in getting a Michigan or a Nebraska, or a Texas to sign to play us and beat out others in the future, it might not. We don't know fully yet.
As for your point about many big time basketball programs playing in NYC that is true. But the number of big-time football programs playing in the city is going to increase between Rutgers joining the Big Ten, SU with its MetLife contract, and the new fad of "neutral" site games going on all over the country. It obviously will never equal college basketball in sheer numbers, but the percentage difference will start to close, especially if the MetLife games ultimately prove to be a success.
Cheers,
Neil
